 | Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.
|
One of the disputants misconducted himself
- This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.
Ali edit
| Formal mediation case | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Ali (talk) |
| Opened | 24 Oct 2012 |
| Mediator | Not yet assigned |
| Status | Closed |
| Notes | None |
- Users involved in dispute
- Articles concerned in this dispute
- Other steps of dispute resolution that have been attempted
- Talk page discussions: Talk:Ali#The 'Artistic depiction of Ali'. , Talk:Ali/Archive 5#Where is the picture from?
- Recent RfC: Talk:Ali#Request for comment on infobox image
- Note that this discussion is in some ways similar, though not identical, to the discussions which resulted in the Arbcom proceedings Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images.
Issues to be mediated edit
All aspects of article content over which there is disagreement should be listed here. The filing party should define the scope under "Primary issues", which is used to frame the case; other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on case talk page.
- Primary issues
- The only point currently in dispute (that I am aware of) is the current image in the Infobox--as to whether or not it is an appropriate image to represent the article. Please note that this is not a religiously motivated request (although there are dozens of those in the talk page archives), but a question about this specific image, its providence, and whether or not it meets the requirements in WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. My proposal is to remove the image (I am unaware of any replacement image which meets policy, but would be open to considering one), while Brough87 wishes to retain the current image.
- Note:The only person I have listed as a party to this dispute besides myself is the person currently reverting my edits on the article (User:Brough87). Other users have been involved in this discussion in the past, but none recently. I have not added others as parties, in part because I don't want the mediation to be rejected simply because I mistakenly chose to notify editors who are no longer interested in teh page, and in part because I don't want to appear that I'm choosing specific partisans. I will follow any suggestions from MedCom as to whether or not other parties should be invited.
- It just occurred to me that notifying the talk page of the article should be safe (neutral per WP:CANVAS), so I have done so. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Additional issues (added by other parties)
- Additional issue 1
- Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation edit
All parties please indicate below whether they agree to mediation of this dispute; remember to sign your post. Extended comments should be made on case talk page. Every party listed above will be automatically notified that this request has been filed.
- Agree. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Brough87 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Decision of the Mediation Committee edit
A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate whether this request is to be accepted or rejected. Notes concerning the request and questions to the parties may also be posed by a committee member in this section.
- Accept. We will try to assign a mediator to this case within two weeks. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)